I just want to find 11,780 votes
Deranged Jack Smith drops all charges
- Thread starter ChicagoFineForNow
- Start date
I just want to find 11,780 votes
French rolling was straight 🔥
As for trump or anything I ever post if I write it it’s accurate. Otherwise I wouldn’t
Trump’s owns a demonstrably cringey and loose tongue. Pissing people off, lying, or even being offensive is not criminal. I’m including the “find me more votes” and “I won” comments.
Last edited:
There you go. Honesty is not a trait of MAGAs. Dishonesty is desired of MAGAs. Everything you said in both of those sentences is a lie.
Last edited:
He called for a signature match of Fulton Co. That was all anyone wanted. I’ve read the transcript and listened to the entire phone call. It is not a crime to say you have identified hundreds of thousands of illegal ballots and only need 11k to put you over. In no place in that entire phone call did Trump ever say or imply that he wanted legal ballots thrown out. If you’re down 11,780 ballots of course you hope to find enough illegal ballots to put you over. Again, what crime?
You, and always you, presuppose that trump has evidence - evidence that he did not proffer in 60 cases. And in the instant action the state refuted in the attached transcript.
No crime under any interpretation. Trump was nowhere close to Blagojevich territory. No quid pro quo expressed or implied.
Ha. There’s an entire indictment. That was just one thing I citedIf that is all you got counselor, Judge Snarlcakes rules...........Not Guilty!
That’s part of the broader effort to overturn the results which serve the Rico action as well. It’s not limited to that charge of solicitation
Nothing illegal about any of that. Trump, or anybody, has the right to question, complain about, or claim an election was illegitimate. Everything he did was in court, or in an administrative agency, and he lost every case. Do you really want to live in a place where you go to jail for claiming, even falsely, that an election is illegitimate? Try Venezuela.
Read the indictment and charges. It was more than claiming an election was illegitimate. Without the benefit of reviewing all of the evidence neither you nor I can predict how a jury would evaluate same. As I related before the actions cited are more than simply asking questions.
I’ve read it often.
I’m thinking ham Sandwich.
Moreover, the statutes are badly interpreted and applied
Smith is a hack
He says we don’t know what a jury would decide. Of course we do. An all Democrat jury in DC or Manhattan with a Democrat judge would convict every single time crime or no crime. It doesn’t matter.
We could probably bring Biden or Obama down to Northern Alabama and convict them for almost anything too.
Wow, COH. What you say about that indictment and Smith doesn't match a single legal scholar's take on them which I've heard on the Smerconish or the Abrams shows. Again, their consensus from all sides is that both cases were very solid. It's easy search to find lots of analysis of these indictments by legal scholars and it's a hard search to find any that agree with your take.
Where did the Marine on the train have his trial? What was that verdict? Your legal analysis is worse than that of any hairdresser. I can't believe you're a lawyer. What kind of law do you practice?
You've made it clear over and over again that you don't think (sorry, I know you really don't think) any Republican or conservative can get a fair trial in places like NY. Which of course, is false, like nearly everything you post.
Also, a hairdresser who watched The Andy Griffith Show would know more about selecting jurors than you do. You've demonstrated that you're clueless about it.
He did say to “find” the votes. But that statement is way too vague to launch an investigation much less an indictment.
Unless you’re braindead, trash bag Fanny in league with the Biden DOJ.
Except for the SCOTUS. Sarbanes opinion.
Smith exposed himself in the documents case. He had an easy road toward trial. His blinkered anti-Trump ideology didn’t allow him to use it. He’s a hack. And not a very smart one at that.
Read pages 13-16 of the indictment. It's all about Georgia, including the call, and all the lies that Trump and his co-conspirators spread (knowing they were lies) to rile up his dupes and to illegally overturn the results.
The saddest thing is that Trump knew and knows almost everything he said about the election was a lie, yet his dupes like you still believe them completely.
The decision did not derail either indictment. That was also discussed thoroughly. They would have gone on with minor revisions of the indictments which were completed. Now Trump will skate, except for the reports which will be released, because he's above the law. Perfect example of a two-tiered justice system.
None of that matters because those allegations involve a misapplication, misinterpretation, and misuse of the KKK and Sarbanes Oxley statutes. I don’t defend Trumps conduct (as you well know) but if all that is to be considered a federal crime, we need a law that makes it a crime.
Then they would just show us the signatures and prove you right once and for all.
They were both relevant, but neither was going to derail the prosecutions. Only his election did that. Canon tried hard to derail her case too, but she would have been overturned. By the way, the biggest clown in all of this (defense, prosecution and judges) is Judge Aileen Cannon. She couldn't be more blatant in her desire to help the defendant. I listened to more than one legal scholar laugh out loud about her.
Cannon’s fault is inexperience in trial procedure. She is plenty smart and split exactly the right hair in her special counsel opinion. I heard many legal scholars who don’t understand her ruling. There are many smart commentators who don’t understand the SCOTUS immunity decision either. Don’t place too much faith in what you hear on TV. Listen to me instead. I’ve probably got more relevant knowledge and experience than they do.
Sorry, COH. I think of you as a pretty long-time WC friend. We used to agree on nearly everything. When it comes to Trump, it seems your objectivity is totally gone. Regardless, we don't agree on much concerning him.Cannon’s fault is inexperience in trial procedure. She is plenty smart and split exactly the right hair in her special counsel opinion. I heard many legal scholars who don’t understand her ruling. There are many smart commentators who don’t understand the SCOTUS immunity decision either. Don’t place too much faith in what you hear on TV. Listen to me instead. I’ve probably got more relevant knowledge and experience than they do.
By the way, SeriusXM is satellite radio. I rarely watch TV for news or analysis. The POTUS channel is great for that, and the hosts aren't like Rush (who I used to listen to regularly) or Hannity (who I hated listening to for more than a few minutes). They really get all sides of issues involved. They do allow callers at times and some sound exactly like dbm or others inflicted with Trump Devotion Syndrome (TDS).
It's a shame Professor. @Aloha Hoosier could take your course and learn something worthwhile, but instead chooses to get his information from Radio personalities.Cannon’s fault is inexperience in trial procedure. She is plenty smart and split exactly the right hair in her special counsel opinion. I heard many legal scholars who don’t understand her ruling. There are many smart commentators who don’t understand the SCOTUS immunity decision either. Don’t place too much faith in what you hear on TV. Listen to me instead. I’ve probably got more relevant knowledge and experience than they do.
Nope. They’re legal scholars and litigators. Some have appeared before the USSC. I’m not listening to ambulance chasers, public defenders, legal clerks or even my old friends here. I know I’m not an expert so I seek experts.
How heavily do you weigh this guys opinion? Seems like an expert.
As Texas solicitor general, Cruz argued before the U.S. Supreme Court nine times, winning five cases and losing four. He authored 70 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and presented 34 appellate oral arguments.
Eh that’s academic exercises. Dbm isn’t totally wrong. Trump would not have been convicted on the records case. I say that with a very high degree of certainty
Why? I think that’s the biggest slam dunk of all of them - except for the Judge acting like part of the defense team. If I deliberately took 300+ classified documents to my house I’d be in military prison and deserve every year they gave me. I had the highest possible clearance but that doesn’t come with a right to mishandle classified information. In fact, it comes with the responsibility to do the opposite.
No, the Biden, Pence and HRC cases aren’t at all close to the same.
Bc as Dbm noted the human factor matters. Throw in Biden had them. The likelihood of trump being convicted in that one is slim
I like coh know more than those “experts”you’re reading
The guy who ignores the fact Trump called his wife ugly and his father an assassin by association with LHO. Not much when it comes to Trump related matters. He put his nuts in a jar and gave them to Trump to keep on his mantle.
Once again, the Biden case is not at all like the Trump case. Not deliberate, no obstruction and no conspiracy to obstruct in the Biden case.
Maybe they wouldn’t get a conviction but now we’ll never know.
Counter point: Perhaps he’s an adult capable of mending mutually beneficial relationships and recognizing people for who they are.
That’s called maturity. Try it on.
